On Dec 21, 2007 1:44 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:

You still haven't looked at the issue with /usr/man/man* getting replaced by a symlink, which is not possible on a system where manpages are already installed.

But that can be covered at a later date. The actual "support" for this is simply unsetting MANPATH. If a package installs man pages to /usr/man/man1 it will still be looked up just fine. The makepkg 3.1 will no longer move man pages to /usr/man, so I don't think we should do any moving until that is out the door. Could you explain to me how the symlink will help? It seems like, to me, we're just going to confuse the crap out of pacman when it tries to install/upgrade. With the current implementation, man pages will work regardless of where they are.

On Dec 21, 2007 3:22 PM, Jan de Groot wrote:

One thing wrong with this package though: you built it with a broken makepkg, the manpage directories are all moved back to /usr/man :P

Hahah, I didn't even think about that! That's hilarious. I assumed it moved raw pages, not the whole dir tree. /me sighs

On Dec 23, 2007 7:20 PM, Jason Chu wrote:

...

Potential issue: Apparently /etc/profile is not replaced if modified. Can someone verify if this is fixed or not? I will investigate further as I fear it may be a pacman bug - if so, I'm guessing keeping etc/profile in BOTH backup arrays for the time being may fix this.

I can verify that this wasn't fixed on my update. My /etc/profile was still my original one and I ended up extracting the etc/profile from the filesystem package by hand.

Bump now that pacman 3.1 is out the door?

On Jan 23, 2008 4:21 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Dienstag, 22. Januar 2008 04:27:29 schrieb Aaron Griffin:

...

On Dec 23, 2007 7:20 PM, Jason Chu wrote:

...

...

Potential issue: Apparently /etc/profile is not replaced if modified. Can someone verify if this is fixed or not? I will investigate further as I fear it may be a pacman bug - if so, I'm guessing keeping etc/profile in BOTH backup arrays for the time being may fix this.

I can verify that this wasn't fixed on my update. My /etc/profile was still my original one and I ended up extracting the etc/profile from the filesystem package by hand.

Bump now that pacman 3.1 is out the door?

Right, because using the old profile breaks man pages stored in /usr/share/man like the one which comes with pacman.

Signoff, i686, both packages. -Dan

On Jan 23, 2008 10:39 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 23. Januar 2008 15:22:00 schrieb Dan McGee:

...

Signoff, i686, both packages.

I think you have just signed-off a package which is not yet there. :-) (or don't we want to bump filesystem/bash?)

The ones in testing are fine, aren't they?

On Jan 23, 2008 4:21 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Dienstag, 22. Januar 2008 04:27:29 schrieb Aaron Griffin:

...

On Dec 23, 2007 7:20 PM, Jason Chu wrote:

...

...

Potential issue: Apparently /etc/profile is not replaced if modified. Can someone verify if this is fixed or not? I will investigate further as I fear it may be a pacman bug - if so, I'm guessing keeping etc/profile in BOTH backup arrays for the time being may fix this.

I can verify that this wasn't fixed on my update. My /etc/profile was still my original one and I ended up extracting the etc/profile from the filesystem package by hand.

Bump now that pacman 3.1 is out the door?

Right, because using the old profile breaks man pages stored in /usr/share/man like the one which comes with pacman.

Yes. The packages sitting there should be fine. They've been in testing for some time. If they need a pkgrel bump, I can do that too. I just want to get these out the door before more man pages get lost (every package built with makepkg 3.1 has "broken" man pages)